| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Andrew Sullivan
Andrew Sullivan has opined that the murder of Nick Berg and similar decapitations are "as alien to true Islam as the KKK was to the Gospels." Such thoughts are comforting to many, as they suggest a still-large reservoir, if not of good will then at least of people with whom a reasonable accord may be reached, in the Islamic world.
Unfortunately, however, Sullivan is wrong: the decapitations are anything but "alien to true Islam," as Andrew G. Bostom shows at FrontPage:
Reactions to the grotesque jihadist decapitation of yet another "infidel Jew," Mr. Berg, make clear that our intelligentsia are either dangerously uninformed, or simply unwilling to come to terms with this ugly reality: such murders are consistent with sacred jihad practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all non-Muslim infidels, in particular, Jews, which date back to the 7th century, and the Prophet Muhammad's own example.According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.
The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi’ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad), regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns:
“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]
Indeed such odious “rules” were iterated by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire.
For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of “enlightened” Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut. On the Indian subcontinent, Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Mughal Empire, who is revered as a paragon of Muslim tolerance by modern revisionist historians, recorded the following in his autobiographical “Baburnama,” about infidel prisoners of a jihad campaign:
"Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." [The Baburnama -Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated and edited by Wheeler M. Thacktson, Oxford University Press,1996, p. 188. Emphasis added.]
Recent jihad-inspired decapitations of infidels by Muslims have occurred across the globe- Christians in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria; Hindu priests and "unveiled" Hindu women in Kashmir; Wall Street Journal reporter, and Jew, Daniel Pearl. We should not be surprised that these contemporary paroxysms of jihad violence are accompanied by ritualized beheadings. Such gruesome acts are in fact sanctioned by core Islamic sacred texts, and classical Muslim jurisprudence. Empty claims that jihad decapitations are somehow "alien to true Islam," however well-intentioned, undermine serious efforts to reform and desacralize Islamic doctrine. This process will only begin with frank discussion, both between non-Muslims and Muslims, and within the Muslim community.
Posted by Robert at May 13, 2004 1:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I saw Sullivan's post the other day and about fell off the chair when he called this "a war to defend Islam." Right. Just like the cold war was a war to defend Russians. What a tool.
Posted by: Allah at May 13, 2004 1:22 PMOne could fill up a volume with examples of Muslim decapitations of Infidel enemies, from the Sikh and Hindu villagers in Kashmir, to the hostages murdered by Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, to examples in Paris and Houston, where Muslims slit the throats of Infidel "friends" and "neighbors."
Among the most celebrated victims of such a practice was the British General Charles Gordon, "Chinese" Gordon (given that epithet from his service in China -- he should not be confused with Ernest "Chinese" Wilson, who collected botanical specimens in China on expeditions undertaken for the Arnold Arboretum and other institutions), who fought the Mad Mahdi in the Sudan in the 1880s. In "The River War" Churchill describes the death of General Gordon, after the fall of Khartoum, thus:
"One mob of assailants made their way to the palace. Gordon came out to meet them. The whole courtyward was filled with wild, harlequin figures and sharp, glittering blades. He attempted a parley. 'Where is your master, the Mahdi?' He knew his influence over native races. Perhaps he hoped to save the lives of some of the inhabitants. Perhaps in that supreme moment imagination flashed another picture before his eyes; and he saw himself confronted with the false prophet of a false religion, confronted with the European prisoners who had 'denied their Lord,' offered the choice of death or the Koran', saw himself facing that savage circle with a fanaticism equal to, and a courage greater than, their own; marching in all the pride of faith 'and with retorted scorn' to a martyr's death.
It was not to be. Mad with the joy of victory and religious frenzy, they rushed upon him and, while he disdained even to fire his revolver, stabbed him in many places. The body fell down the steps and lay -- a twisted heap--at the foot. There it was decapitated. The head was carried to the Mahdi. The trunk was stabbed again and again by the infuriated creatures, till nothing but a shapeless bundle of torn flesh and bloody rags remained of what had been a great and famous man and the envoy of her Britannic Majesty. The bload soaked into the ground, and left a dark stain which was not immediately effaced. Slatin [Sir Rudolf Slatin, "Pasha" Slatin, author of "Fire and Sword] mentions that the Arabs used often to visit the place."
One is reminded of the mobs of Fallujah, or Ramallah, or Mosul, or Baghdad, or Gaza. They are all the same, moved by the same passions, the same Muslim impulses, the same hatreds.
Decapitation, like mutilation of bodies, is still practiced around the world, by frenzied Muslim mobs and individuals. Other societies exhibit signs of a slow but certain progress in their moral development. Slavery, for example, is no longer tolerated in the non-Islamic world. It is still practiced, and still sanctioned, sas it must be, by Islam. So to is the seizure of the enemy's women (a few months ago, the Christian women left in Ramadi, in the Sunni Triangle, were taken away by their Muslim neighbors), and appropriation of the conquered enemy's wealth as booty. Islamic texts, being from Allah, cannot admit of change; the gates of ijtihad swung shut a thousand years ago.
Muhammad often had his enemies, once they had surrendered, murdered. The most famous example is that offered by in the posting: hundreds of members of the Bani Qurayza tribe were killed, their throats slit. Muhammad is the model for all Muslims, the perfect man. He married Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9; therefore, Ayatollah Khomeini's first act was to reduce the marriageable age for girls to nine years. Muhammd slit the throats of those he captured; Muslims everywhere believe that they can do the same. No Geneva Convention, no Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no innate sense of what is right, can overcome the model of Muhammad, the teachings of Qur'an, hadith, and sira.
The AID's drugs and the steriods are taking a toll on him...
http://www.isteve.com/ManlyMolecule.htm
Posted by: jp at May 13, 2004 4:03 PMThose who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." .....
Ahh thats where the US MPs went wrong...unacceptable to make a pyramid of nude criminals..but totally acceptable to make a pyramid of skulls...bunch of sickos
Posted by: USAgirl at May 13, 2004 7:16 PMThe more I read about this realigion the more i realise it is insane, these fools follow a madman into hell, its a cult of murder and death whereby they are proud of their killings, how can they even compare this man to jesus i wonder? are these people possessed?
Posted by: pro-orthodox at May 13, 2004 8:21 PMI have always been intrigued by the mention of
the "souls beheaded for the testimony of Jesus"
in the book of Revelation, who did not worship the
beast or his image. This seems to be coming into
a little more focus now. It was hard for me to
image the return of the guillotine on a worldwide
scale.
Another example of dhities this time from a JEWISH australian newspaper regasrding the murder of Nick Berg.
http://www.ajn.com.au/pages/current-paper/national-02.html
"It was unclear whether his captors were aware of his religion."
Obviously the editors have not read the satanic verses.
Why don't they ask themselves why Nick was murdered in the same way as Daniel?
Or why he was not just simoly shot through the head like the brave italian who refused to yield.
I would just like to inform you that islam was not spread by the sword but spread by the good ways the of the musim and how they acted. If islam was spread y the sword then why is 70 percent of indias population still hindu. Surely if they were killed and forced then india as a whole would have become muslim. Its not possible to force people to convert to a religion as a fter a while they will resent it. Fair enough i admitt that what a handful of idiotic people are doing is bad but it does mean to say that you should generalise and make comments on the whole muslim population. You are simply portraying a negative image of islam have not done proer research on the history of this true religion. The american media has continued to portray negative images of muslims simply because americA IS RUN BY JEWS.
Posted by: zal at May 19, 2004 5:15 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)